Thursday, March 30 2023: the day the bill for the historic referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament was introduced and met with a standing ovation — and the day the cold emptiness of the opposition benches provided an immortal image of the feckless Peter Dutton as opposition leader.
The message of contempt was as vivid as it was absolute.
It’s therefore unsurprising that, to the minds of many moderates and progressives, the sonorous collapse of the Liberal Party across the mainland — completed with the fall of the Perrottet government last Saturday — is a cause for celebration. The sense, even if only subliminal, is that the triumph of mendacity, corruption, division and brute rapacity that has become so synonymous with the Coalition brand, but most particularly the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison era, is over, and a rare moment of progressive dominance awaits.
Internally for the party, its spectacular demise is nothing less than an existential crisis writ large, one that beckons political decay in the absence of any reckoning and which threatens to consign the party to years of internal civil war, discontent and footnote-like irrelevance. As the disdain and faux outrage with which Dutton conducts himself attest daily, it’s obviously proving difficult admitting “you have an ugly baby”.
But as this saga unfolds and autopsies on the Liberal Party’s lowest point in modern history gather pace, two pressing questions about the state of Australian politics suggest themselves. What accounts for Albanese Labor’s small-target politics in this seemingly golden age of progressive opportunity? And in what ways is it destined to remake the Australian political landscape?
In answer to the first, the received wisdom is that the general smallness and lack of ambition visible in Labor’s agenda on issues such as tax, welfare, climate change and, dare I say, even integrity, is a symptom of timidness. Having taken a bold agenda of reform to the 2019 election and suffered an ignominious defeat, a spooked Labor thinks the skirmishes invited by substantive reform in these areas, not least from News Corp, are too chancy to contend with. And so political incrementalism must inevitably be reduced to the order of the day, or so the narrative runs.
The alternative reading is that none of this is some accident of history or unfortunate aberration that falls to be reconciled come Labor’s second term. On the contrary, this is New Labor: a party that has not so much drifted as consciously stepped to the right and, in so doing, has abandoned basic fairness as an organising principle in many of the most fundamental areas of government policy.
If this seems decidedly unlikely or uncharitable, consider Labor’s intransigence on JobSeeker and the foreshadowed stage three tax cuts. On the former, “budget constraints” have proved a common refrain whenever Labor is prodded about raising the miserable allowance from $50 to $88 a day in line with the Henderson poverty line. Indeed, so it was this week, when Tony Burke told listeners on RN Breakfast that the government is “not going to be able to do in the budget, you know, everything that a Labor government might want to do straightaway”, before adding he’d done his best as industrial relations minister to help JobSeeker recipients into jobs.
The stage three tax cuts, by contrast, elicit no such objections, despite the fact they’re slated to drain the public purse by at least $250 billion over a decade — more than twice the amount the suggested JobSeeker raise would cost — and herald the destruction of the country’s progressive tax system.
The same comparison can be made of Labor’s refusal to boost the Medicare rebate or pause the annual indexing of student debt amid the worst cost-of-living crisis in years. These are plainly reforms that would benefit low- and middle-income households, and yet Labor conversely remains committed to defending negative gearing, franking credits and generous superannuation concessions — benefits that largely accrue to the wealthy and carry a combined price tag of more than $837 billion over 10 years.
It’s true there has been some limited movement on superannuation and franking credits in recent weeks, but it’s minimal and bitsy, and has in any event been shelved until after the 2025 election.
“We don’t begrudge anyone who has made a lot of money [off the taxpayer] or saved a lot of money or takes advantage of the tax breaks that are legitimately available to them,” Treasurer Jim Chalmers recently reminded Australians on this front.
“If you have done well in super, that’s a good thing.”
Similar statements, it bears mentioning, can be traced to June 2019, when Morrison was still preening himself on his “miracle” win. There, Albanese and Chalmers described a $200,000 wage as “aspirational” rather than “top end of town”, never mind it’s more than three times the average annual salary. The point here is neither of those descriptions nor the statements that followed can readily be dismissed or excused as political flourishes. The common thread that runs throughout is emblematic of a shift in political identity — the language or politics of aspiration unspooled from the constraints of fairness championed under Bill Shorten’s Labor.
This isn’t to deny that the government has moved in a number of directions the Liberal Party of today wouldn’t dare trek. Clearly it has. There’s the discontinuation of the Bernard Collaery prosecution for one, and the return of the Nadesalingam family to Biloela for another. Not to mention the granting of permanent protection to many (but not all) refugees subsisting on temporary visas, the diplomatic repair-work on the foreign policy front, the decision to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal polluted by years of Coalition cronyism, and, not least, the inquiries into robodebt and Morrison’s secret ministries.
But these were always easy pickings, the low-hanging fruit, if you like, left by an exquisitely appalling government. The lack of public resistance on every score militates against the idea they were in any way controversial or surprisingly bold. And perhaps more to the point, none ran contrary to the drumbeat of Labor’s newfound aspirational politics.
Which brings us to the why. What conceivable political advantage would Labor see in asserting itself as the dominant party of the centre-right — progressive on social issues, yes, but economically conservative when it comes to the poor, populist when it comes to the wealthy and upwardly mobile, and hardly dissimilar from the opposition when it comes to business (as its climate policy testifies)?
The answer is that it’s a position that appeals to the disenchanted Liberal voter base and those described by Sydney Morning Herald columnist Waleed Aly as “hip-pocket voters” — those who are, by definition, “aspirational” and see an appeal in tax cuts, even if they themselves don’t immediately benefit from them, if ever. It also proceeds on the assumption the Liberal Party is incapable of mending itself and returning from the abyss. So, in occupying this position, while Labor might bleed some votes from its left flank to the Greens or the teals, it’s betting it won’t be enough to occasion actual losses. And even if it did, swings in Liberal territory would probably compensate. Majority secured.
A similar phenomenon was brought into sharp relief in the recent Victorian election. There Labor tilted east, picking up traditional blue-ribbon heartland, through policies — such as the second stage of the Suburban Rail Loop — which favoured Melbourne’s east and largely ignored the west where it suffered 10-12% swings against it. Notably, however, no seats in the western suburbs fell to the opposition.
If this same or similar strategy is front of mind for federal Labor, it would explain why the government sees no paradox in its support for the stage three tax cuts and its singular indifference to the poor. It would also explain why, this week, Albanese was equally indifferent to the spectre, he raised, of no social and affordable housing relief when confronted with the legitimate concerns of the Senate crossbench over the government’s flawed housing policy.
When asked whether the government would countenance the Greens’ proposed amendments, Albanese told reporters that Labor is “happy to have” an all-or-nothing argument with the minor party about it “between now and the next election”. In other words, he’s not bothered about the 176,000 households languishing on the social housing waiting list; he’d rather enjoy the political advantage of wedging the Greens, who, for their part, called the response “morally repugnant”. It’s hardly an inapt description, particularly when it’s remembered Albanese is a man who regularly cites his own public housing roots as a point of pride.
All of which brings us to the implications of this gambit, much of which will turn on the capacity of the Liberal Party to refashion itself as a moderate political force. If it were to achieve this, and soon, Labor’s strategy would probably fail. If, as is more likely, the Liberal Party proves incapable of overcoming its extremist tendencies, Labor would probably consolidate its vote at the next election and the two-party system would collapse, leaving Labor with no viable opposition except, one would hope, in the form of the Greens and independents in a situation not wholly dissimilar to that of today.
Yet the problem with this position — where one major party becomes so supreme, so dominant — is it’s liable to breed a politics of contempt. A contempt for political opponents and political debate, a contempt for the public and basic standards of transparency, and a contempt for institutions and conventions, not unlike that manifested by Dutton’s Liberal Party in parliament on Thursday. It’s a politics of contempt likewise discernible in the unprecedented allegations levelled against the Andrews government this month by former IBAC head Robert Redlich. And indeed, it’s possible we’re already seeing a similar arrogance begin to creep into federal Labor, if Albanese’s housing position vis-à-vis the Greens and the government’s wider failings in the areas of freedom of information, whistle-blowing and its new yet anaemic anti-corruption body may be taken as a guide.
The logical upshot, against this backdrop, is a country with the hallmarks of democracy but an absence of the conditions required to properly sustain it. Perhaps more dangerously, as inequality rises with the long march of time, it could foster widespread political discontent and reverse the appeal of the Liberal Party in a manner not so dissimilar to the gathering of storms witnessed in Trump’s America.
The future of Australian politics, in other words, could be taking shape before our eyes, and the potential long-term consequences it carries are as depressing as they are bleak.
Excellent analysis Maeve – esp. the observation regarding the risks involved when one party dominates the agenda, politically and culturally, and what inevitably flows from that.
Also, I’d add the disastrous AUKUS decision to the list of disappointments from Albanese.
We are seeing this in WA with the McGowan Government. They have a majority in both houses and just ram legislation through without any regard for the consequences. There’s no opposition to speak of. Two seats for the Liberal Party who gave up at the last election with Zac Kirk when he said it was pointless trying as they are never going to win, or words to that effect. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Could you provide some examples of the WA legislation that bothers you? I am genuinely curious. I don’t doubt McGowan’s government passes legislation with ease, or as you put it, rams it through, but in the circumstances where it has a solid majority in both houses what else can it do? BTW I agree with you that a viable opposition is healthy for keeping any government on its toes and answerable. The present sitation in WA reflects the deep failings of the Liberals and is not McGowan’s fault, but it reflects what voters wanted at the last election and it has resulted, after decades, in reform of the electoral system to correct the colossal built-in malapportionment of votes. That would never have been possible without a Labor majority in both houses, because the big bias in the previous system heavily advantaged non-Metropolitan voters, mostly Liberals and Nationals.
…I’m thinking less and less that “a viable opposition is healthy for keeping any government on its toes and answerable” is of any value to the voter these days… don’t our Oppositions at least, just resume their positions of opposition and opposing for oppositions sake just to make a brand difference and trot out the same, lame talking points as provided by their staffers who have gleaned a phrase or two from a focus group that works with the media.
We’re hearing less and less well researched replies to debates on issues that matter. And we can’t expect MSM to make a valuable contribution to these things either as they’ll all focussing on making a bit of profit and grooming for influence. Its the crossbench who only seem to provide some reasonable assessments of issues and challenge the current Govt.
I suspect what Maeve has written is true and I’m disappointed.
Our Federal opposition just does not appear to the thinking long term, other than their own perks, monthly paycheck and superannuation entitlements
Nobody every accused Conservatives of thinking about the future.
I think more it is the general hubris of the government, with so much power that bother many electors. we need competition in Government and an honest media to make democracy work, we have neither.
I would suggest the hospital system along with ambulance ramping needs a cool head, and better management. I just cannot watch our Deputy Premier Mr. Cooke our previous health minister, he now has the tourism portfolio, what a joke, no credibility.
Education, nurses police, prison staff are all way understaffed and I believe underpaid. Juvenile detention is in crisis. Major projects such as metro net are so far behind schedule, ask anyone who drives the Tonkin Hwy on a regular basis, revitalization of the East Perth power station precinct put on hold.
However priorities seem to include increasing the penalty for dog kidnapping as canvassed by one local northern suburbs member, I would prefer that dog owners chipped their overpriced animals and increased the height of their fences to make thier precious pets more secure.
Nothing I’d argue with there. So the problem is not the WA government ‘ramming through’ legislation. It isn’t. Arguably, things might be far better if it did. At least there would be some action. The real problem is that the WA government sits on its arse while public services fail and various crises grow. On top of your list I’d add the appalling scandal of the WA Public Trustee which is a source of terror to anyone who might end up in its clutches and the never-ending injustices committed against the aboriginal population.
Ramming through legislation is what created the unjust Public Trustee system.
In 2008 Colin Barnett pushed through a law to make the PT seld-funded (rather than govt funded) without voting on it by Executive function allowing the Public Trustee to use the money of people who have some assets to subsidise people without any assets.
It’s a very good point you make, but the original comment about ramming through legislation in WA was very specific to the current McGowan government and its overwhelming majority, and that was the entire context of my comment.
Barnett has much to answer for. He was in charge when WA did the mad deal with Palmer that is once again heading to court.
Yes totally agree there. Crikey did an excellent review on Public Trustees a couple of years back, it seems nothing has changed.
We need competition in Government? What does that mean? Some sort of endorsement of Government as another neoliberal market providing choice for the discerning voter? What we need are values and integrity and that’s what the average voter wants to see.
No No! Australia is democracy, with a compulsory preferential voting system. Anyone or group can start a political party, you just have to have some credible policies, along with the integrity and values you speak of.
My observation is that political parties often seem to have a life of about three terms, then they get complacent, form lucrative bonds with the establishment and their donors, So it is healthy to renew.
In my opinion in the last election WA libs were too interested in squabbling who was going to lead them rather than concentrate on the hospital crisis that was looming and many other community issues.
We also need a better MSM, less Tabloid and opinion writing, one that reports, both sides of the story and does not have a vested interest from their billionaire owners with in Australia and outside of Australia.
Not only is there no effective opposition to the McGowan regime, there is no press scrutiny as long as he does as he’s told by Stokes and lets Woodside and the other miners get away with their ongoing environmental vandalism.
I’d say that the drums are already beating, and if Albanese remains deaf to them, the next election may well give him an unwelcome (and unexpected) surprise.
If the Greens spend the next couple of years developing policies as though they would actually have to implement them, they could well capture the “disappointed” Labor vote.
With even more Teals taking over the centre ground and displacing Tea-Party Liberals, there could easily be the makings of a new “coalition” that would render both Liberal and Labor irrelevant.
Are the Labor leadership dumb enough?
Judging by their persistence with the AUKUS fantasy, it ain’t looking good………………………
Judging by their persistence with the AUKUS fantasy
I’m fairly certain that neither the Liberal/National Coalition government nor the replacement ALP government are making the decisions on AUKUS or the subs.
…after all it’s all about “sovereignty”, right? It’s that “HM” in “HMAS” it’s the “R” in “RAAF”, it’s the Union Flag in the canton of the Australian flag… it’s Pine Gap, it’s US military bases on Australian soil, it’s the vibe…
If all voters were reasonably educated and informed your prediction of the Greens picking up the voters Labor has abandoned would be a good bet. In reality, here as in the UK and USA, most of the voters left behind by the more leftish of the two main parties are neither reasonably educated nor informed. They are easy pickings for the bat-crazy conspiracy theories, the demagogues, the grievance and victimhood pedlars, the demonisers of minorities and the diseased version of nationalism; and thanks to the rise of anti-social media it has never been easier to push that politics.
(the Greens) “could well capture the “disappointed” Labor vote”. May have already done so.
Like mine.
Well and truly already done so.
Nobody left Voting 1 for Labor except Rustadons, Centrists and pragmatic liberals.
Any significant increased Green vote from here is going to come from the yoof growing up with New Labor, not people abandoning them.
I think they also captured a lot of “disappointed” Liberal voters
Spot on.
Benefiting from the aftermath of the worst government in history along with a talent-free opposition makes Albo and co think they’re much better than they are.
They’ll look it too-for a while.
But not forever.
And well-funded Independents may stand against Labor
If the Greens came out with a science based population policy that attacked the Big Australia ponzi scheme that would offer Australia an actual opposition party.
Labor started its drift to the right many years ago, when Hawke and Keating introduced neoliberalism to Australia. It has been very disappointing, although not surprising, to see Labor very critical of the Liberal government, e.g. in the way it handled covid, NewStart payments are too low, we need greater transparency, only to do a complete 180 degree turn when in government. Albanese milked the mother in public housing for all it was worth and now turns his back on the poor. Wedging The Greens and kowtowing to the fossil fuel industry are Labor’s goals. Kicking the most vulnerable Australians when they’re down has become a sport for Labor. Labor also refuses to acknowledge the achievements of Julia Gillard, whose government passed more bills than any other government in our history. To do so would require admitting that Gillard teamed up with The Greens to place a very effective price on carbon, and that doesn’t suit Labor’s narrative. Clearly neither of the major parties is for women or the poors. Now we just need more of the voters to realise that Labor is every bit as captured as the Coalition. The death of the two party system cannot come soon enough.
Ace comment, Leandra. Should be framed and hung on the walls of everyone who loves the truth.
Yes, the way Albo has not engaged the greens positively I always thought was stupid. They are technically both Left of centre.
However the article here clarifies my thinking a bit (thanks Maeve) as I have been hugely disappointed in Labor, the summit of disappointment coming from the AUKUS decision, so quickly into the term. It would have been so easy to can it and replace it with some modern thinking stuff at about a third the cost. Prepared to give Labor a go to get rid of the heinous LNP, but not again unless there is a real turn around to fix the social issues they have batted on about for so long. (up the Jobseeker and can the stage three tax cuts.
they could have done all of these things with ease with the Green’s support.
Chicken or the egg? Like the UK where Labour is absolutely wedged between biased right wing legacy media cartel inc. BBC, same US ideological via think tanks informing economic and immigration policy & filling ministerial roles (of the Tories) while their constituents inc. unions and members are ageing, while holding nativist economic views similar to those in power?
People do complain too much about ‘Hawke and Keating introduced neoliberalism to Australia’ sure, if you ignore the innovative policies, engagement with Asian nations, removing support for cartels eg. super, wheat, wool etc. boards and the external forces imposed upon Australia i.e. the rise of US oligarch linked think tanks, media oligopoly, retro eugenics, hollowing out of parties and civil society.
Dynamics that have been ignored since have been demographic ie. Howard’s people developed the Anglo/Irish cohorts while creating and focusing upon ‘the other’ refugees and immigration, or proxy white Oz policies; the LNP was able to pare off ageing Labor voters or persuadables who were transitioning from the work force, and dominating the above median age vote.
Australia tends to drag its heels and follows, as does Labor, though better than the LNP; like media, politics is overpopulated by ‘skips’ seemingly informed by the 1970s? However, we are in the midst of a mother lode of demographic change as the baby boomer bomb transitions to retirement, maybe we are seeing the start of more significant change (vs. being boxed in) removing Stage 3 tax cuts and wriggling out of AUKUS.
Now would be an opportune time to have a Royal Commission into media ownership, it would be difficult to excortiate a government for acting on the recommendations of a RC. For those relying the on the Gollum to soon do the first decent thing in his wretched existence, his anointed heir is believed to be even worse.
And making the media sector or cartel operate according to the same ‘free market’ principles they constantly shout about; if they hit financial difficulties, no direct/indirect state support or lifelines, but simply sell out, at a loss….. no wonder a proprietor and friendly LNP mates, despise the EU so much as their anti-cartel & anti-monopoly laws would preclude three main Oz RW media groups…..
Good article, McGregor. It’s one of the true horrors of life that many of those in power do not learn from their own history, but go on to repeat the cruelty and repression against their own kind. That Albanese, child of a single mother and of social housing, would grow up to use the most vulnerable and ripped-off as hostages against the Greens, who are actively trying to help them, is an abomination of the worst kind. Even Trump wouldn’t do this.
I found the reaction to the Greens’ and others’ desire for more housing funds to be unfathomable. OK, funds might tight but they could have expressed their intention to keep increasing it and getting the Greens’ agreement. I bet none of these people have ever heard of the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement or the related state Housing Commissions which were abolished in favor of market forces.
One element, that adds to the explanation for this behaviour, is the overwhelming tribalism in Labor. Labor is what you barrack for and thus doing over the Greens and Liberals and independents is the main and obvious goal. The rest is mostly just a means to that end. This tendency in Labor has long been there, especially on the right, but it’s grown to dominate. In part from success, time spent in government, along with accompanying rise of the apparatchiks, enculturated in student politics and having solid career paths for over 20 years in most cases, due to prizes of being in government. Add to that the decline of organised labour and unions becoming another realm of apparatchiks attached to the Party. So the ahem, voice of the working classes (ie anyone working for a wage or salary) is very muted.
Some very good points and the M M article is excellent. I’m a long-term ALP member and NOT tribal at all. I can think for myself!! There are some in the Party who really hate the Greens; illogically, I would say. However, the disappointment that is developing amongst ordinary members ( including me), is increasing. The upcoming Budget will give a clear indication of whether the Albo Govt is pursuing the strategy outlined in the article. This would be a huge mistake given the challenges ahead, the demographic changes that suit Labor and progressive voices and the waning of the power and influence of the Murdoch media and their ilk!! Right now, we need a LABOR government; the next 6-12 months will show conclusively if we actually have one!!!
They are not unfathomable. The current housing and rental crisis is a clear and immediate issue. Homelessness has never been worse. There are working people living in tents and cars. Have you looked at the queues stretching around blocks to try to get a decent rental? The proposed fund is a drop in the ocean, it’s barely symbolic, let alone practical. You’re right about the acquiescing to market forces, which was deliberate, calculated, and led to the current problem. (Where’s Four Corners, here?) But that’s why the state has to not just step in, but to treat the issue as if on a war footing. This stuff is what led to the MAGA backlash in America.
I think you misunderstood, Losimpson’s point, based exactly on what you point out, is that Labor’s response, as a Labour Party, is unfathomable.
Thank you. I should have said “…Labor’s reaction…”
Ah, right. That first sentence could have gone either way. Apologies to Losimpson.
It was Labor’s (Albanese being a smart-@rse) response to the Greens that is unfathomable.
And on top of that, the only knob that could be turned quickly to provide a measure of short-term relief – immigration – is being turned very hard in the wrong direction to massively spike demand into drum-tight market with slumping supply.
It’s Albo’s Landlords Party now.
Labor’s priority is, as always, picking a fight with the Greens. Labor works with the Greens only as a last resort and with utmost reluctance, a necessary evil. Labor regards the Coalition parties as rivals but still with respect, but it regards the Greens with loathing and contempt. It’s been like this ever since the Greens began winning seats. Far from being unfathomable, Labor’s reaction to the housing funds proposal was utterly predictable.
Over and over again I say they are STUPID. That’s where their lost votes are going.
Funds are demonstrably not tight, though. $10b is being spent into an investment fund that could be used to build houses (that, based on the last few decades, would be a far better “investment” than anything else.
The HAFF exists much like all those other “funds” (eg: disaster relief), to pump Government money into the finance sector.
How can anyone take this sort of criticism seriously? $10 billion is being invested and the earnings are to be spent on housing. The $10 billion is not spending. The government can effectively conjure that from nowhere and conjure it back anytime they want. That’s finance.
Can you compare and contrast what you mean by “investment” and “spending” ?
Because there haven’t been many better “investments” in Australia than buying property.
Funds are very obviously not tight. On the contrary, money appears to be growing on trees.
Funds are tight? But there’s so much to spare that there is no need to even consider cancelling the scheduled massive tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.
Funds are tight? But there’s so much in the kitty that there is no need to ask any questions about where to find $370 billion for future subs. Remember that discussion where Labor asked themselves “if we can’t find even $10 billion in real money to spend on housing then where are we going to get hundreds of billions from?” Neither does anybody else.
I think Trump would definitely do this. I agree that Albo milked both his mother’s disability and his social housing upbringing to the max.
The man is a class traitor.
Potentially- plenty of current examples!!! Mark Latham is in the news for all the wrong reasons!! The classic ‘labor rat’.
Frank – Trump WOULD do that. his father was a slum-lord king, and the Don was an enthusiastic acolyte.
Thanks Maeve for a great article.